Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / November 2003

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

QuackWatch (Barrett) loses in court again

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Joe - 07 Nov 2003 19:16 GMT
http://pro-networkers.com/bbs/messages/12137.html

Joe
Ignoramus14327 - 07 Nov 2003 19:30 GMT
Have you actually read the article?

The court ruled on the issue of burden of proof. It ruled that
supplement makers do not have to test their product. It did not decide
that homeopathic products are beneficial for health.

i

> http://pro-networkers.com/bbs/messages/12137.html
>
> Joe
Joe - 07 Nov 2003 19:43 GMT
Igny,

The disgruntled old turd has had case after case thrown out.  What
does that tell you about him and his hijinks?  

Have you read the other pages about him?

>Have you actually read the article?

Yes.  Have you read my other pages and taken this in context with
them?

>The court ruled on the issue of burden of proof. It ruled that
>supplement makers do not have to test their product. It did not decide
>that homeopathic products are beneficial for health.

Did I say that it did?  What I am saying is that this is just one more
case that points to his aim to stop at *nothing* until "alternative"
medicine is wiped out.

Joe

>i
>
>> http://pro-networkers.com/bbs/messages/12137.html
>>
>> Joe
Ignoramus14327 - 07 Nov 2003 19:48 GMT
> Igny,
>
> The disgruntled old turd has had case after case thrown out.  What
> does that tell you about him and his hijinks?  
>
> Have you read the other pages about him?

I did read some pages and yes, I consider him to be less credible
after I read some of those pages.

i

>>Have you actually read the article?
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>>>
>>> Joe
Patricia Heil - 07 Nov 2003 21:04 GMT
Yep.  You've just put your finger on the problem.  People
don't understand that supplements are not regulated as
far as testing is concerned.  That is because in the US
they are not classed as drugs, if they were the FDA would
regulate their testing.

> Have you actually read the article?
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> >
> > Joe
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.